Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8780 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2017 5:19 AM
350 online now:
CRR, dwise1, Huntard, Meddle, PaulK (5 members, 345 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,395 Year: 21,001/21,208 Month: 1,434/2,326 Week: 770/345 Day: 8/124 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
7Next
Author Topic:   Heat release from tectonic friction
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 76 of 102 (685047)
12-20-2012 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by TrueCreation
12-20-2012 2:17 AM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
Hi TC,

TrueCreation writes:

I don't see what your point is, though.

Isn't water the the cooling agent that cools the plates as they move?

So my point is that the water would have got in the materials between the stationary materals and the moving materials during the movement, and into the mantel during any subduction.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by TrueCreation, posted 12-20-2012 2:17 AM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2012 2:09 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 81 by TrueCreation, posted 12-20-2012 2:26 PM ICANT has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1316 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 77 of 102 (685048)
12-20-2012 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by TrueCreation
12-20-2012 1:53 AM


Re: Back of envelope calculation

Unless the Earth contracts or is acted on by an external force, kinetic energy available for plate tectonics at the surface originates in a conversion from the internal energy by mantle convection.

Oh, I get it.
Its like spagetti moving in a boiling pot as the salty water bubbles, right?

The bubbling energy is there all the time.
The qustion the OP asks then seems to guess what the temoerature would be to mive the spagetti faster than say 600 million years, and form Pangea in 4000 years.

If the YECS wold entertain Pangea as a theory, the whole point of the question woulkd be moot.
But, supposing that they did accept a 600 million year duration, compacted into 4000 years, your calcuklations would expect the thermal energy of the moment to raise the present temperature.

Is that what we are saying here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by TrueCreation, posted 12-20-2012 1:53 AM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by TrueCreation, posted 12-20-2012 2:41 PM kofh2u has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25827
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 78 of 102 (685051)
12-20-2012 10:05 AM


Nontechnical language request
Since this topic bears on the claims of Young Earth Creationists, I would very much appreciate it if the participants would put their thoughts into simple English and avoid the technical language so I can follow the discussion. Thank you.
Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 12-20-2012 10:19 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29183
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 79 of 102 (685055)
12-20-2012 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
12-20-2012 10:05 AM


Re: Nontechnical language request
They are using the simplest possible English already. The problem is that you need to learn the technical details to understand what is being said.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 12-20-2012 10:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 80 of 102 (685098)
12-20-2012 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ICANT
12-20-2012 9:49 AM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
Isn't water the the cooling agent that cools the plates as they move?

It wouldn't be an effective cooling agent unless there was someplace to transfer the heat out of the water. Imagine your cars cooling system without a radiator.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 12-20-2012 9:49 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ICANT, posted 12-21-2012 12:24 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 81 of 102 (685102)
12-20-2012 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ICANT
12-20-2012 9:49 AM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
quote:
Isn't water the the cooling agent that cools the plates as they move?

So my point is that the water would have got in the materials between the stationary materals and the moving materials during the movement, and into the mantel during any subduction.

God Bless,



Water is able to cool things by moving through it. Chemically bound water in the mantle won't accomplish any of that. On the other hand you could suppose that hydrothermal circulation in oceanic lithosphere removes heat and cools the lithosphere. In fact, we already know this happens in oceanic crust and to some extent in the mantle, but it is not more widespread than we would expect from present-day rates. Most heat is transported by hydrothermal circulation very close to spreading ridges where the lithosphere is mostly oceanic crust and is thin, but after a few million years of cooling thermal gradients at the surface are not enough to drive circulation and pore spaces are sealed by alteration processes like serpentinization. The lithosphere would be chemically and thermally nothing like what we see if cooling by seawater transported 10^29 J of energy, and none of this solves the heat problem anyway.

Nevertheless, you are right that water in the lithosphere will be dragged into the mantle during subduction, which is well understood. This is why volcanism occurs in subduction zone arcs (think of the 'ring of fire'). On the other hand, note that this water taken to the mantle is chemically bound in serpentinites and such. Free pore water is mostly squeezed out of the plate long before it reaches significant depth.

Edited by TrueCreation, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 12-20-2012 9:49 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by ICANT, posted 12-21-2012 12:59 PM TrueCreation has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 82 of 102 (685104)
12-20-2012 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by kofh2u
12-20-2012 9:56 AM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
quote:
Oh, I get it.
Its like spagetti moving in a boiling pot as the salty water bubbles, right?

The bubbling energy is there all the time.
The qustion the OP asks then seems to guess what the temoerature would be to mive the spagetti faster than say 600 million years, and form Pangea in 4000 years.

If the YECS wold entertain Pangea as a theory, the whole point of the question woulkd be moot.
But, supposing that they did accept a 600 million year duration, compacted into 4000 years, your calcuklations would expect the thermal energy of the moment to raise the present temperature.

Is that what we are saying here?



I think so. In the "spaghetti pot" of the Earth, the kinetic energy of motion is small compared to the huge amounts of heat removed by conduction at the surface of the boiling water/convecting mantle.

The general point is that an understanding of geology and geophysics tells us that if the YEC hypothesis is true, the only way to make it work is to take the long history of the Earth and compact is into the younger timescale. The specific point I make in this thread, as you seem to correctly ascertain, is that if you do this one of the major problems is with heat. It is like witnessing a car crash--was the car going 100 kilometers per hour when it hit the brick wall, or was it going 30,000 kilometers per second? The latter causes a big heat problem, but we could also study the wreckage and find that no such speed was ever reached. Maybe the car was going 80 kph or 120 kph, but it certainly wasn't going a good fraction of the speed of light.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by kofh2u, posted 12-20-2012 9:56 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by kofh2u, posted 12-21-2012 12:35 PM TrueCreation has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 83 of 102 (685268)
12-21-2012 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by NoNukes
12-20-2012 2:09 PM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
Hi No,

NoNukes writes:

It wouldn't be an effective cooling agent unless there was someplace to transfer the heat out of the water.

Any water at the bottom of the ocean that was introduced into the oceanic crust would be able to account for a lot of cooling as it is 1.5C to 4.5 C.

But water at 210 can still transfer heat as it becomes steam, as well as superheated steam. And yes the water in the lithosphere and asthenosphere would need vents to expell heat such as those in the ocean and through volcanos, as well as the cooler mass above the water.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2012 2:09 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by TrueCreation, posted 12-21-2012 3:49 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1316 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 84 of 102 (685272)
12-21-2012 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by TrueCreation
12-20-2012 2:41 PM


Re: Back of envelope calculation

I think so. In the "spaghetti pot" of the Earth, the kinetic energy of motion is small compared to the huge amounts of heat removed by conduction at the surface of the boiling water/convecting mantle.

Yeah, I see the point,...
The problem seems to be informingthe YECs that Pangea happened 600 million years ago, though, so we can do the math.

I don't know if they will deny Pangea, but how could they accept it if the earth is only 6000 years old??

Or, maybe they do accept Pangea but think it happened around 6000 years ago?
If so, your case has merit in informing them it just could not be.

But there is NO hope this will change minds, since the atheists on the other side ar just as bad when they hear that Pangea supports Gen 1:9.

Nobody wants the truth if it doesn't conform with their opinion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by TrueCreation, posted 12-20-2012 2:41 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by TrueCreation, posted 12-21-2012 5:00 PM kofh2u has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 85 of 102 (685277)
12-21-2012 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by TrueCreation
12-20-2012 2:26 PM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
Hi TC,

TrueCreation writes:

Water is able to cool things by moving through it.

In a laundry sheets and towels and cloths are washed and then as much water as possible is extracted from the material. But the material still contains water.

Steam produced in a boiler is used to heat ironers, and presses as well as tunnels that are used to remove the water from the cloth material.

The water first is heated to be come steam and then the steam heats the metal that the cloth material is put in contact with and that metal then transfers heat to the cloth material whch becomes dry,as the water in the material trys to cool the metal.

TrueCreation writes:

Chemically bound water in the mantle won't accomplish any of that.

How did that water get captured in the lherzolite and retained in nominally anhydrous minerals?

Where did that water come from?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by TrueCreation, posted 12-20-2012 2:26 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by TrueCreation, posted 12-21-2012 4:50 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 86 of 102 (685307)
12-21-2012 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by ICANT
12-21-2012 12:24 PM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
quote:
Any water at the bottom of the ocean that was introduced into the oceanic crust would be able to account for a lot of cooling as it is 1.5C to 4.5 C.

But water at 210 can still transfer heat as it becomes steam, as well as superheated steam. And yes the water in the lithosphere and asthenosphere would need vents to expell heat such as those in the ocean and through volcanos, as well as the cooler mass above the water.



The temperature needs to be much higher than 200C for steam to form at depth in oceanic crust, let alone the mantle. In any case it doesn't matter much. Hydrothermal circulation in oceanic crust is a topic of much interest in geodynamic modeling. The kind of Nusselt numbers (convective/conductive heat transport ratio) for hydrothermal transport in the youngest oceanic crust are on the order of 10-100. You need to assume nonsense thermodynamics to significantly increase this number.

quote:
And yes the water in the lithosphere and asthenosphere would need vents to expell heat such as those in the ocean and through volcanos, as well as the cooler mass above the water.

I don't see how they "need" vents to expel heat except as an ad hoc mechanism (which doesn't work and is not compatible with geochemistry and petrology) to transport an enormous amount of heat from the lithosphere into the oceans, which then needs to be magically removed anyway. Also, I hope you aren't confused: the water in the rock of the lithosphere and asthenosphere is very small and will not contribute to cooling.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ICANT, posted 12-21-2012 12:24 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 102 (685316)
12-21-2012 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by ICANT
12-21-2012 12:59 PM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
quote:
How did that water get captured in the lherzolite and retained in nominally anhydrous minerals?

Where did that water come from?



Initial accretion of Earth and subduction over 3 or 4 billion years of Earth history.

I don't know what you are trying to say in the other part of your message.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ICANT, posted 12-21-2012 12:59 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 88 of 102 (685318)
12-21-2012 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by kofh2u
12-21-2012 12:35 PM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
quote:
Yeah, I see the point,...
The problem seems to be informingthe YECs that Pangea happened 600 million years ago, though, so we can do the math.

I don't know if they will deny Pangea, but how could they accept it if the earth is only 6000 years old??

Or, maybe they do accept Pangea but think it happened around 6000 years ago?
If so, your case has merit in informing them it just could not be.

But there is NO hope this will change minds, since the atheists on the other side ar just as bad when they hear that Pangea supports Gen 1:9.

Nobody wants the truth if it doesn't conform with their opinion.



Well, convincing someone of a certain truth is not my concern if they do not value scientific method. I might go so far as to say that if one does not value scientific epistemology, they deserve to believe lies.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by kofh2u, posted 12-21-2012 12:35 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by foreveryoung, posted 12-21-2012 8:01 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded
 Message 91 by kofh2u, posted 12-24-2012 5:36 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded
 Message 92 by mindspawn, posted 01-15-2013 9:21 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 880
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 89 of 102 (685330)
12-21-2012 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by TrueCreation
12-21-2012 5:00 PM


Re: Back of envelope calculation
Pangaea existed for a wide expanse of time. It started coming together in the carboniferous and was complete about 250 million years ago and started to break apart in the jurassic. I would say that it ceased to exist when there was a body of water completely seperating north and south america from europe and africa, although fragments of it persisted like antarctica being connected to australia for some time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by TrueCreation, posted 12-21-2012 5:00 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by kofh2u, posted 12-24-2012 5:25 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1316 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 90 of 102 (685658)
12-24-2012 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by foreveryoung
12-21-2012 8:01 PM


Re: Back of envelope calculation

Pangaea existed for a wide expanse of time. It started coming together in the carboniferous and was complete about 250 million years ago and started to break apart in the jurassic. I would say that it ceased to exist when there was a body of water completely seperating north and south america from europe and africa, although fragments of it persisted like antarctica being connected to australia for some time.

It would seem better to calculate the time fromthe break up of Rodinia, the first formation that defined a pantahalassic ocean surrounding just one continent, until the break up of Rodinia and the formation of Pangea.
The would be be one whole cycle.

This very first formation took place during the "Neo-archean evening of the Archaean Era-"

"and the Paleo-proterozoic morning of the Proterozoic Era," = i.e.; the Third "Day"...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by foreveryoung, posted 12-21-2012 8:01 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Prev12345
6
7Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017